Talk:NPR controversies/Archive 1

Why locked?
Is there a reason this page is locked for editing? Seeing as I created the page, I'm curious as to why I can't edit it..:) This page is the result of consensus at the NPR talk page. Please refer there for more detail. I am suggesting an edit to the Vivian Cchiller section. In dicussion of her resignation it states that it "was accepted". This makes an implication not backed up by reference. Please remove the "" marks from "was accepted". The next sentence serves just as well in idicating some feel she was forced out. Jbower47 (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I locked it because of a dispute about the addition/removal of content regarding Nina Totenberg. Both "sides" have requested the other side discuss it on the talk page, but no discussion exists. Please discuss and reach consensus. As WP:EW states, "Once it is clear that there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on edit summaries and discuss the matter on the article's talk page." See also WP:WRONG. tedder (talk) 17:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it locked indefinitely? Do you have access? (sorry, I've never dealt with a locked page before..). If so, can you please make the edit request outlined above?Jbower47 (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's locked for about a week to stem the edit war over the content in the next section. I removed the quotes you mentioned. tedder (talk) 22:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Who is "Tedder" and on what grounds does "Tedder" have the right to act in this way? ---Dagme (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Nina Totenberg
Xenophrenic keeps removing the Nina Totenberg controversies for no apparent reason. I didnt create that section, I'm just putting it back after is was deleted from the NPR page for no real reason. It cant be because its "too old" as some moderators have tried to say in the past because the Mumia Abu-Jamal commentaries are a year older. The comments made by can Totenberg certainly be described as controversial, and are cited in the section, so why must it go? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.168.77 (talk) 07:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you paste the text here so we can discuss it? I don't recall what the substance of the controversy was. Being "too old" certainly doesn't disqualify something as the stated purpose of this page (which I can say, being the one who created it:)) is to cover any allegations and controversies that arose over NPR's history without cluttering up the main page. If Totenberg's comments were relevant and we RS that back it up, and there was an actual controversy (not just someone, somewhere once took offense and no one else noticed), then they belong here. But that will be easier to determine if we have the content here for discussion.Jbower47 (talk) 22:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Rather than pasting in the text, here's the diff. tedder (talk) 22:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That's right, the Helms/AIDs comments...I'd forgotten about that. I think the text is fairly good, but some of the references need to go. That Fox News Source specifically states a POV. I don't rule Fox out in general, but in this case, it's pretty obviously not neutral on this. I don't think it's necessary given other sources. Let's weed out the references to avoid edit warring fodder.Jbower47 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC).


 * The whole "It's too old" thing stems from the original NPR article, and it was an editor named Gamalieil who made the first edits, Xenophrenic seemed to follow suit against me. The article has four sources, so I feel for a single paragraph that it is well sourced.  I have not read the Fox one so I cant say whether or not it is biased, but I do see that that particular sentence has two citations related to it.    I apologize for not using the talk page before, but it has been my experience justifications made in it fall on deaf ears.  Apparently not the case right now though.
 * That is incorrect. The Totenberg comment was first introduced by Drrll here in October as part of the Juan Williams issue, and cited only to the FOX source.  User (98.232.166.138 / 24.20.230.213 / 128.193.148.126 / 98.246.191.164) has repeatedly tried to reinsert that content, but it has been reverted or deleted several times by Bkonrad, IP 24.99.98.151 and others before Gamaliel, Grahamboat or I expressed concern. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with placing it back in for now, as long as the Fox News source is removed. Even if the POV is limited solely to the very inflammatory title, it still gives the appearance of impropriety/POV, which is fodder for edit wars:) However, I would oppose adding it back in as is. I have no issue with replacing that source with another neutral source, but as is it is hard to defend. I would have the same issue if tables were turned. If a report by MSNBC entitled "Why Fox News in Inherently Wrong" was referenced, even if the article itself was of neutral tone, the overall conclusion as summed up in the title, is enough to push it into POV territory.Jbower47 (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What exactly is wrong with citing Fox News? Most people would agree that CNN, MSNBC, and The New York Times also report a biased view, yet I dont see much consideration given when they are used to cite.  I dont care either way, I just dont have the time to read Fox's report in full and was curious what people found so biased in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.166.138 (talk • contribs) 04:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * In 1995, Sen. Jesse Helms had strongly opposed funding for AIDS research and treatment, saying, "We've got to have common sense about a disease transmitted by people deliberately engaging in unnatural acts," referring to homosexuality, and that "deliberate, disgusting, revolting conduct" was to blame for AIDS. Nina Totenberg, legal affairs correspondent for National Public Radio (NPR), commented during the television program, Inside Washington, "I think he ought to be worried about the — about what's going on in the good Lord's mind, because if there's retributive justice, he'll get AIDS from a transfusion or one of his grandchildren will get it." Totenberg says she was trying to make the point that Helms' objection to federal funding for AIDS testing could lead to its spread among heterosexuals and babies born to women who had HIV, but regrets her comments as a harsh way to make her point.

I've tried to salvage the above content (re-worded, without the FOX source and the "NPR took no action" unsourced WP:OR, etc.), but it is still very problematic content for a number of reasons. What exactly is the controversy? None of the cited sources explain what the controversy supposedly is, and strangely enough, every source that raises Totenberg's comment does so only in relation to the Juan Williams issue 15 years later. Did her comment only become "controversial" recently? Most of the references supplied with the original insertion don't even mention Totenberg, and are included only to show that Helms appears to be the one making controversial comments: Even the other guests on that very same political Inside Washington program joined Totenberg in roundly criticizing Helms', saying he is "bigoted", "cruel", "doesn't understand", and is a hypocrite. While Totenberg's choice of words was "dumb", as she calls it, I'm still waiting for someone to produce a reliable source that explains why her comment warrants inclusion in an "NPR controversies" article. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "There is not one single case of AIDS in this country that cannot be traced in origin to sodomy..."
 * "The government should spend less money on people with AIDS because they got sick as a result of deliberate, disgusting, revolting conduct."
 * "Nothing positive happened to Sodom and Gomorrah, and nothing positive is likely to happen to America if our people succumb to the drumbeats of support for the homosexual lifestyle."
 * AIDS prevention literature is "so obscene, so revolting, I may throw up."
 * If you feel that Senator Helm's comments are controversial then maybe you could add them to his page, but this is page is about NPR. Even if it was in a heated argument, Totenberg's comments are seen to be just as controversial as Helm's by other people too.  I also don't know why you think that it just now become controversial.  Wikipedia doesn't already contain everything in recorded history, but it gets closer as time goes on.  NPR's first page was a single sentence long, does that mean that everything added later should be removed as it was not deemed significant enough to include the first time?  Totenberg's comments made while an employee of NPR need to be included even though they are 16 years old and may cast a bad light on the two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.166.138 (talk • contribs) 04:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Then you should have no trouble providing a reliable source saying as much. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It has four. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.168.77 (talk) 05:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Then that should be 4-times as easy for you. Could you please chose your favorite and copy the text here so that we may review it? Xenophrenic (talk) 06:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So you mean to say that you have been removing and editing articles without reviewing their sources? How did you decide what was acceptable to keep?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.166.138 (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll take that as a "no". Xenophrenic (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But this isn't the first time the NPR diva has publicly wished death on a conservative. "I think he ought to be worried about what's going on in the Good Lord's mind," she said of Senator Jesse Helms in 1995, "because if there is retributive justice, he'll get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will." --http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2003/12/28/hate_speech_of_the_left/


 * Hurt, Charles Hurt (March 6, 2002). "NEW FOCUS IS ON AIDS IN AFRICA, NOT AMERICA;SENATOR HOLDS FAST TO STATED OPINION ON GAYS AND DRUG NEEDLE USERS". The Charlotte Observer. "I think he ought to be worried about what's going on in the good Lord's mind because if there's retributive justice, he'll get AIDS from a transfusion or one of his grandchildren will get it."


 * There are 2 more in 2 minutes of searching. I also shouldn't have to defend this article, you should have to justify removing it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.230.213 (talk) 04:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll repeat the request here, since you seem to have misunderstood what it was:
 * I'm still waiting for someone to produce a reliable source that explains why her comment warrants inclusion in an "NPR controversies" article.
 * Looking at these two "sources" you have provided, I see that neither conveys what the supposed "controversy" was; they only repeat what she said. Perhaps the other 2 sources you found can convey what the "controversy" is, because these two do not.  Neither do the original sources cited in this Wikipedia article.  Totenberg is obviously critical of Helms position, and her comment has been called "dumb", "harsh", and "a stupid remark", but that does not a controversy make.  In fact, there was no allegation of "controversy" for 15 years until the Juan Williams events when certain folks tried to draw a comparison between the two, unless you have sources that show otherwise.  And we are still waiting for those sources. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 08:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, justifying the significance, relevance and appropriateness of content to be inserted is the burden of the editor adding that content. Since you have been inserting that content, I just assumed you would be able to show us a source that conveys what the "controversy" was. Did people resign or get fired over it; was there a flood of tens of thousands of letters of complaint; were there court cases and Congressional motions because of it?  Why is it an "NPR Controversy", and where is the reliable source that conveys that? Xenophrenic (talk) 08:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

So you mean to tell me that you don't understand when something is controversial unless it is literally spelled out for you? Could you please point out in each section and each source where is expressly says that the specific event was or had become controversial? Until then please refrain from interjecting your own personal points of view by censoring anything that may paint your political belief system in a bad light. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.166.138 (talk) 03:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Your arguments would hold more sway if they were actually about the edits at hand and not just attacks on other editors and rants about some conspiracy to "censor" the truth. Something becomes a controversy only when it is reported as such by disinterested and reliable third-party source. In this case, a person's opinion that they don't like somebody or something does not make it a controversy. That only demonstrates what their opinion is. --Loonymonkey (talk) 06:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Stating the obvious doesn't refute it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.166.138 (talk) 10:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I know this is the subject of an ongoing edit war, which I don't support, but it seems like some mention of this incident is warranted, avoiding the Fox News source but using the L.A. Times source (http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/23/entertainment/la-et-onthemedia-20101021) and this ABC News source (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/williams-fires-back-npr-signs-expanded-role-fox/story?id=11954997). Both stories are indeed in the context of the Juan Williams firing, but I think this is probably just because it happened back in 1995 and it easier to find recent stories about it. The sources don't explicitly say it is a controversy, but both ask why she wasn't fired, and she has apologized for it, so it is clearly notable. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 18:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that this should be given at least a sentence or two. There is a least one source that does describe this as a controversy--a news story by a White House correspondent on the straight news Fox News program Special Report with Bret Baier on October 21, 2010 (I agree that the other Fox News source, from foxnews.com, is too POV). Here are the relevant excerpts:
 * MIKE EMANUEL, FOX NEWS WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): NPR has had other personalities make controversial statements who did not lose their jobs.
 * Andrei Codrescu, a commentator for the program "All Things Considered," mocked the Christian pamphlet about the doctrine of the rapture the ascension into heaven. Quote, "The evaporation of four million people who believe in this crap would leave the world a better place."
 * In October 2003, Nina Totenberg, NPR's legal affairs correspondent, appeared on the television show "Inside Washington" and spoke about Lieutenant General Jerry Boykin who believed God put George W. Bush in the White House. And Totenberg said, quote, "I hope he's not long for this world, because you can imagine." When challenged if that meant she wanted him dead, Totenberg said, "No, no. I mean in his job."
 * (END VIDEOTAPE)
 * EMANUEL: Critics suggest this is political correctness run amok when it is OK to attack Christians, but a fireable offense when speaking about Muslims. The political correctness apparently extends to attacking conservatives.
 * Nina Totenberg once said of former North Carolina Jesse Helms, quote, "I think he ought to be worried about what's going on in the good Lord's mind, because if there is retributive justice, he'll get AIDS from a transfusion or one of his grandchildren will" -- Bret.
 * Drrll (talk) 00:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The sources don't explicitly say it is a controversy, but both ask why she wasn't fired, and she has apologized for it, so it is clearly notable.
 * She wasn't fired because it wasn't a firing offense. You say she has apologized for it, but I have yet to see the actual apology.  In fact, she stands by her message, but simply wishes she had expressed herself differently, conceding that "her comments represented a harsh and overly personalized way to make her point".  Regretting her choice of words does not a controversy make, and it's clearly not notable.  It certainly doesn't "become a controversy" 15 years later.
 * The ABC News source says "An NPR spokeswoman said Totenberg has repeatedly apologized for her comments." An NPR blog post (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/10/26/130838719/totenberg-on-helms-remark-stupidest-thing-she-s-said-on-tv) describes it in more depth. You can call it an apology or not, but it's beside the point. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 17:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The NPR link you provided is the source I was quoting above. And regardless of what spokespeople say, I still haven't seen an apology. The point is you are asserting there is an "NPR controversy" when there isn't; you are asserting what she said was "clearly notable", when it wasn't (everyone across the political spectrum was saying the same thing); you are assuming the lack of coverage of her remarks (pre-Williams) is because it's "easier to find recent stories about it", instead of the more obvious reason that it wasn't a story. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a least one source that does describe this as a controversy...
 * Not really. What was said was this: "NPR has had other personalities make controversial statements who did not lose their jobs." (Link, please?) So what was the controversy?  Williams wasn't fired for making a controversial statement.  He was fired for making a series of comments beyond the appropriate range of a news analyst — and for ignoring previous warnings that he had repeatedly violated the network's standards. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you looking for a source that uses the exact word "controversy"? If not a controversy, what else would you call this? –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 17:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought I was quite clear about what I was looking for. Quoting myself from above, "What was the controversy?"  At most, it might deserve a footnote in the Totenberg article (and that is stretching BLP policy quite a bit), but it certainly isn't an NPR Controversy. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ummm, the controversy was her saying publicly that she hoped an elected official got a horrible disease. The fact that it was brought up a full 15 years later shows how controversial it was. Helms was widely criticized for his remarks, but they certainly weren't "saying the same thing" as Totenberg. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 18:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, no, that's not what she or the other commentators on that show said. She said he should be concerned about retributive justice from the Lord for his hypocritical and cruel stance on the issue, and nothing about her own hopes. The fact is that it wasn't an NPR controversy, and wasn't brought up until more than 15 years later when Williams (and his conservative supporters) were scrambling for similar mis-speaks in an attempt to show NPR as somehow unfair in firing Williams.  If you want to make your "controversy" case about her remarks, you should do it on her article page; if you want to make an "NPR controversy" case about her not being fired, then you'll need to explain just what that controversy is. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, how about this: I found a mention of the incident on Google Books (http://books.google.com/books?id=YzccAQAAIAAJ&q=%22nina+totenberg%22+%22jesse+helms%22&dq=%22nina+totenberg%22+%22jesse+helms%22&hl=en&ei=0D_-Te3PCojUiAKR0uHyCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBjgK) in a book called Ethics in media communication: cases and controversies. This was published in 2006, before the Juan Williams firing. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 19:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you are asking. I'm not disputing that she made the remark.  Or that some people complained about her remarks (the NPR article makes clear she even responded to letters of complaint). Xenophrenic (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought your argument was that it was not notable outside of the Juan Williams firing. The Google Books source shows it is. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 20:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that was not my argument. Perhaps if I reiterated my argument here: If you want to make your "controversy" case about her remarks, you should do it on her article page; if you want to make an "NPR controversy" case about her not being fired, then you'll need to explain just what that controversy is. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The controversy is both what she, as an NPR employee, said, characterized by the Google Books source as "hate speech", and that she was not fired for it, as expressed in the L.A. Times article, "Shouldn't Totenberg have gotten the boot?" –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 20:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As for your "what she said" 'controversy', her article is thataway. You haven't explained what controversy exists around Totenberg not being fired. As for the LA Times article to which you refer: the quote, "Shouldn't Totenberg have gotten the boot?" is asked in response to his hypothetical situation in which Williams got the boot merely for violating an ethics guideline -- which isn't the case with Williams.  In addition, the author of that piece goes on to answer his own question about if Totenberg should have gotten the boot: "Journalists should share all their beliefs and prejudices, a transparency that will enable audiences to better judge our work," and believes senior people (other than standard reporters) should be able to offer analysis and opinion.  Again, Totenberg's remark isn't an "NPR controversy". Xenophrenic (talk) 22:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Finding an offhand mention in a very obscure source (that you had to scour the internet to find) hardly makes something notable. And it's not even about NPR, it's about Totenberg.  Even if this somehow passed notability, you would be engaging in a sort of synthesis by trying to make it about NPR.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Totenberg's comments were a firing offense according to the official policies of NPR that they cited in the days after Williams' firing:
 * “In appearing on TV or other media . . . NPR journalists should not express views they would not air in their role as an NPR journalist. They should not participate in shows . . . that encourage punditry and speculation rather than fact-based analysis.”...“In appearing on TV or other media including electronic Web-based forums, NPR journalists should not express views they would not air in their role as an NPR journalist.”
 * Totenberg appears to violate that policy weekly by appearing on the commentary show Inside Washington with comments like the Helms comments. She did repeatedly apologize according to an NPR spokeswoman.
 * There is no openly available link to the Special Report story, but if you want the full transcript I could email you that (it's available via paid databases such as LexisNexis). The source I provided explicitly says that Totenberg's comments were "controversial." There are other sources that describe the comments as controversial. The website Mediaite, started by the liberal Dan Abrams had a news story that called the comments "controversial." A column in the conservative Weekly Standard by Stephen F. Hayes describes the comments "controversial." Even NPR itself referred to the comments as "provocative." If Williams "was fired for making a series of comments beyond the appropriate range of a news analyst", how in the hell is Totenberg's comments (not just the Helms comments) over the years not "beyond the appropriate range" of a reporter? Of course it is an NPR controversy when one of the most prominent representatives of NPR says something like she did on TV identified solely as an NPR reporter.Drrll (talk) 22:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * (No, only a potentially firing offense that actually may not incur any punishment whatsoever: "3. NPR journalists who do not comply with the Code may be subject to disciplinary action up to and including termination.") Rostz (talk) 00:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That is an important distinction. NPR can pick and choose which employees it decides to go after. Employees who are valuable to NPR for their work in attempting (and sometimes succeeding) in bringing down conservatives/Republicans tend to get overlooked when they stray from policy (after all, among Williams' many sins against the left, he dared to defend Clarence Thomas, despite the fact that Williams is a liberal on most issues). The fact that NPR has never taken any action with regard to Totenberg doesn't mean that what she said about Helms was not a controversy. Drrll (talk) 12:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, now you're just flying your flag of ideology. That's verging into WP:NOTAFORUM territory.  It doesn't really matter that you, personally, are incensed by this (or that the few links you posted to partisan sources which share your ideology are).  It's simply not even something that's ever been discussed outside of a few right-wing echo chambers.  Those guys squawk about everything, 24/7.  It doesn't mean it all becomes "controversy."  --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Even leaving out the conservative Weekly Standard opinion source, there are still two straight news stories that specifically call Totenberg's comments "controversial" (a Fox News story that comes from a source that is no more "partisan" than NPR itself, and a Mediaite story that comes from a source that is hardly conservative, despite your suggestion that it is). Then there are the several other news sources that, while not actually using the magic word "controversial," still convey that her comments were controversial, including the NPR source that calls Totenberg's comments "provocative." That reliable news sources convey that her comments were controversial is undeniable. Drrll (talk) 16:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It is odd that the editors at Nina Totenberg (an article where I know Drrll is especially active) have deemed this only worthy of one sentence. If that is the case, why should it get more coverage here? Surely it's more important to her career than to NPR as a whole? Gamaliel (talk) 05:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I advocated a sentence or two about this here--I don't think we should have the fuller treatment that the IP wanted. Other than the Juan Williams controversy, name one NPR controversy that has received as much coverage over the years (starting in the year she made the comment--1995) as Totenberg's comments about Helms. Drrll (talk) 12:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * All of them. I've heard lots of complaints about NPR over the years in many different forums but I've never heard of this Totenberg comment outside of the context of editing her article. Gamaliel (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about the context of coverage by reliable sources. Try to find greater coverage of other controversies (not compalints) besides the Williams one within reliable sources. Drrll (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I should have clarified that by "forums" I meant different types of reliable media sources. Gamaliel (talk) 17:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm breaking in on this discussion rather late in the game, however, it seems to me if there wasn't much reliably sourced reporting and commentary on Totenberg's remarks about Helms at the time she made them, there probably has been substantially more since the Juan Williams firing. Assuming that there have been more recent reports and commentary contrasting the two, wouldn't it make sense to include a mention of the Totenberg incident in the Juan Williams comments section? Badmintonhist (talk) 23:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, there are two separate news sources that reported on Totenberg's comments before the Williams controversy--The Washington Times' (several times), and The Charlotte Observer ("The most stinging and personal attack at the time came from NPR reporter Nina Totenberg.") There are numerous examples of reliably sourced commentary that occurred before the Williams controversy, starting the month after Totenberg made her remarks (for example, see the search results from Google News Archive). There has been much more reliably sourced reporting about Totenberg's remarks since the Williams firing. I believe that a separate subsection on Totenberg is warranted, given that there are sufficient reliable news sources that describe the remarks as "controversial" and the like. However, including the remarks in the Juan Williams comments subsection like you suggested might be a tenable compromise. Drrll (talk) 16:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of quote
I added a single sentence to the Juan Williams controversy section about the Totenberg quote. Xenophrenic made changes to more closely conform the text to the source, but also removed the quote on the basis that the quote was incomplete and thus altered the context. I supplied the entire quote as given in the source, but I see that it does leave out some of the quote. The entire quote is as follows:
 * I think he ought to be worried about the -- about what's going on in the good Lord's mind because if there's retributive justice, he'll get AIDS from a transfusion or one of his grandchildren will get it.

The entire quote is sourceable to this article by NPR media reporter David Folkenflik (it is also sourceable to a Fox News morning news program). The Condrescu quote is also referenced in the text as modified by Xenophrenic without the actual quote included, but the Condrescu quote is supplied in an earlier section. The Totenberg quote needs to be included somewhere in this article. Drrll (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The quote is clearly a major component of the NPR article and should be included. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 22:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the quote as it was added was far too much WP:WEIGHT, without any context whatsoever. The section isn't even about her.  We don't need to fill it up with extended quotes.  Then what?  Do we add her response and those of her defenders?  And then add another response of her detractors for "balance?" No, again, this isn't even about Totenberg. --Loonymonkey (talk) 07:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The section is about Williams, not Totenberg. It seems like an end run around the consensus to keep the Totenberg "controversy" out of the article.  Gamaliel (talk) 14:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It sounds like the main rationale for keeping the quote out is WP:IDONTLIKEIT being in this article. So it doesn't matter that numerous reliable convey that what Totenberg said was controversial (including several that use the magic words "controversial"/"controversy"? It doesn't matter that this controversy is mentioned in reliable sources more so than any other NPR controversy except the Williams controversy? The Totenberg, Codrescu, Williams, and Ronald Schiller controversies are all controversies because of specific comments made by these individuals, but we exclude only the Totenberg comments?


 * I added the Totenberg material to the Williams section after another editor suggested it as a solution to the objection of other editors objecting to a separate section. I actually prefer that it have its own section per the very strong sourcing available for it. Of course in a Totenberg section we should have her take on the matter, given that there is an entire NPR article devoted to that.


 * I question whether there really is a consensus to keep the material out of the article. There definitely was a consensus before that the lengthy paragraph that the earlier IP was edit warring over should not stay as is. How about we work together to cobble together a Totenberg section we can all (or nearly all) live with? Drrll (talk) 15:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I like it just fine, but in the Totenberg article. I don't think you've established that it is an NPR controversy as opposed to a minor Totenberg hiccup.  Gamaliel (talk) 16:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * NPR itself viewed it as a controversy in 2010 in two ways: when asked about it by news organizations, an NPR spokeswoman said that Totenberg had repeatedly apologized for the remarks (see http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/williams-fires-back-npr-signs-expanded-role-fox/story?id=11954997) & they devoted an entire news article to it by their media reporter David Folkenflik (see http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/10/26/130838719/totenberg-on-helms-remark-stupidest-thing-she-s-said-on-tv), as well as referencing it in at least one other on-air story, where Folkenflik called Totenberg's comments "provocative" (see http://www.npr.org/2011/01/07/132726894/npr-v-p-resigns-ceo-rebuked-over-williams-firing). Drrll (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We've already discussed this in the previous section. I'm not sure why we should revisit this issue in the context of discussing the quotation.  Gamaliel (talk) 17:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You said "I don't think you've established that it is an NPR controversy." I then demonstrated how not only do third parties view it as an NPR controversy, but NPR itself does. How the hell does the reader get any idea of what the controversy is if they can't see the quote? It really needs its own section. Drrll (talk) 17:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said in the above section, where this discussion belongs, I don't know how we can justify more coverage here than in Nina Totenberg. The Totenberg article doesn't even have the quote, so to my mind, there's no way to justify it here. Gamaliel (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

There's a simple explanation for that. This article is devoted to NPR controversies, thus by necessity discussing NPR controversies in depth (again, no other controversy but the Williams controversy is so extensively sourced by reliable sources). Totenberg's article is a general biography article, not a 'Nina Totenberg controversies' article (where the Helms comments would take up a sizable portion of that article). The decision about non-inclusion of the quote in the main text of the Totenberg BLP came after extensive discussion, where it was agreed that the quote would be provided in a footnote instead of the main text. Drrll (talk) 18:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like the quote went away. Gamaliel (talk) 18:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. Do you agree that since this is a controversies article that it deserves a longer treatment than the BLP? Drrll (talk) 19:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No. As I said above I don't see how this is particularly significant to the organization. Gamaliel (talk) 19:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Drrll, I think you are confusing "an individual's remark mentioned by some news outlets" with "is an NPR controversy". Even your most recent reiteration of sources (ABCNews and NPR) that you claim show "NPR itself viewed it as a controversy", does not actually show that -- it simply shows there was a kerfluffle around Totenberg's comment, not around NPR.  Totenberg's remark did raise some eyebrows and sparked letters of concern from some viewers, and she did express regret for her choice of words (but not the sentiment, which she still maintains).  However, it never rose to the level of an "NPR controversy"; in fact, NPR never even involved themselves with it.  Had NPR publicly fired her for the comment, or publicly applauded and supported her comment, then an "NPR controversy" might have arose, but that did not happen, so all we have is a "Totenberg controversy" at best.  Keep in mind that Williams was fired by NPR after a series of inappropriate comments and actions, and after having been previously warned and admonished.  NPRs decision to do so is why we have a lengthy "NPR controversy" involving Williams, and there is no such controversy involving Totenberg.  Just because Williams points to Codrescu, Totenberg and others in an attempt to defend himself, that doesn't make their actions "NPR controversies" as well. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You're not saying that something is an NPR controversy only if NPR deems it an NPR controversy or if they act upon something said/done, are you?


 * The criticism leveled by Williams and other commentators in 2010 was directed at NPR, not at Totenberg, for a double standard.


 * According to NPR's own code of ethics, Totenberg has apparently repeatedly violated the rules on saying things she would not say in her role as an on-air journalist and she has apparently violated the rules weekly for about the last 20 years in speaking on shows that "encourage punditry" (Inside Washington being the most prominent, but not the only example). She, like Williams, has said a series of controversial things over the years. The apparent difference is exactly who complains about each of their remarks.


 * In the on-air Folkenflik story I referenced earlier, he said that the NPR board, in wake of the outside review over the Williams firing, announced this past January that it was planning its own review of what NPR personnel are allowed to say in other venues. In the exact same paragraph about that review is a mention of exactly one NPR staffer--Totenberg. Drrll (talk) 02:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * ...in the exact same paragraph about that review is a mention of other NPR figures, plural, "such as legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg." And absolutely zero mention of an NPR controversy.


 * In answer to your question: No, I am not.


 * There is controversy surrounding NPR's firing of Williams for his actions/comments over the years, and policy reviews in the wake of such events are always a good thing (and certainly not controversial). If you are arguing that a section about the Williams firing should exist, I won't disagree. (Oh look, we have one already!)  However, it appears you are suggesting that there is another NPR controversy surrounding Totenberg, when there is not, and the sources you keep citing do not convey that there is. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * In your view, what would a reliable source have to say about the Totenberg remarks to qualify it as an NPR controversy? It's clear that critics regard the comments as an NPR controversy. Drrll (talk) 10:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't really have a "view", so I'll defer to Wikipedia policy instead: reliable sources would have to describe that controversy. I disagree with you that it's clear that critics regard Totenberg's comments as an "NPR controversy".  From the sources I've read, they consider the firing of Williams to be the NPR controversy, not Totenberg's comments from 15 years ago.  That's not to say that some might not find Totenberg's comments to be controversial; some obviously did, but it's not an NPR controversy. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * All or nearly all of the reporting of critics in reliable sources in October 2010 (including the online story from NPR) points to the alleged double standard of NPR with regard to Williams and Totenberg. How could there even be a double standard if Totenberg's comments, like Williams', were not considered an NPR controversy? Williams was taken task precisely because he was a representative of NPR, just like Totenberg was a representative of NPR during her Inside Washington comments. Drrll (talk) 12:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "How could there even be a double standard if Totenberg's comments, like Williams', were not considered an NPR controversy?"
 * Williams' comments weren't considered an "NPR controversy". His comments are a "Williams controversy" (see Juan Williams article).  It became an NPR controversy when NPR fired Williams for repeated incidents after warnings and admonishments, when his supporters felt that he shouldn't have been fired. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Totenberg section
Please look over this proposed section and make suggestions for improvement:
 * In response to 1995 comments by U. S. Senator Jesse Helms about reducing AIDS research funding, where he said "We've got to have common sense about a disease transmitted by people deliberately engaging in unnatural acts," Totenberg said of Helms, "I think he ought to be worried about the -- about what's going on in the good Lord's mind because if there's retributive justice, he'll get AIDS from a transfusion or one of his grandchildren will get it." In the years after her remarks, the comment was reported in news stories and several conservative commentators criticized Totenberg over it. However, when Juan Williams was fired from NPR in 2010, her remarks received more news coverage and additional commentary, including from Juan Williams himself. Totenberg has said she regrets the comments, calling them "stupid," but says that the context of what Helms said was important.
 * Look it over and make suggestions for improvement? For starters, it would be nice if the above paragraph conveyed how that was an "NPR controversy". Xenophrenic (talk) 20:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Are Nina Totenberg's comments about Jesse Helms and AIDS an NPR controversy or just a Nina Totenberg controversy?
In response to controversial remarks about AIDS by Jesse Helms, Nina Totenberg said about him, "I think he ought to be worried about the — about what's going on in the good Lord's mind, because if there's retributive justice, he'll get AIDS from a transfusion or one of his grandchildren will get it." Her comments have generated criticism over the years, especially after the firing of Juan Williams from NPR after several controversial comments he made. In both instances, comments were not actually made on NPR, but elsewhere. Are Totenberg's comments about Helms an NPR controversy or just a Nina Totenberg controversy?Drrll (talk) 18:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Responses

 * NPR controversy. Juan Williams was fired from NPR after several controversial remarks he made. Even though he made the comments in another media venue, NPR let him go since, as an NPR news analyst, he represented NPR. Likewise, although Totenberg made her controversial remarks in another media venue, she, as an NPR reporter, represented NPR. After the Williams firing, multiple reliable sources make it clear that commentators (and at least one reporter) made the observation that NPR reacted quite differently in the two cases. Note that the observations are focused upon NPR's actions, not Totenberg's. NPR made the decision, as a result of the claims put forth of a double standard by NPR, to devote an entire online story by their media reporter soley to her comments about Helms. I don't think that something should be considered an NPR controversy only if NPR makes it one by taking action against the controversial comments. Drrll (talk) 19:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * NPR controversy both because of what she, as an NPR employee, said, and because they didn't fire her over it. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 19:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * RFC Comment: I'm not sure what the question is that comments are invited for. Assuming the question is, are these two incidents "NPR controversies", I'd like to step back a bit and ask should we have this "NPR Controversies" article to begin with? I don't think any of the items currently in the article are "NPR controversies". If IBM fires someone, that isn't an "IBM controversy" but normal everyday business. Similarly if someone reports that NPR resembles other media outlets, that isn't exactly controversial. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If IBM fired somebody for reasons that a significant number of people disagree with, even if they were perfectly within their rights to do so, it would certainly be an IBM controversy. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 19:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The question is, do Totenberg's comments qualify as an NPR controversy or simply as a Nina Totenberg controversy? I believe we have this article because the 'Controversies' material was becoming too unwieldy for the main NPR article. See also Fox News controversies. Drrll (talk) 19:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It isn't established in the article that a significant number of people disagree with the reasons. To the contrary, it says the termination was normal and correct. Similar comments could be made concerning the other "controversies". Concerning Totenberg, do we have sources that say there is a controversy concerning these remarks? --Dailycare (talk) 20:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We have at least 3 sources that call her comments "controversial." This article says that commentators criticized NPR for hypocrisy in the different ways they handled controversial comments by the two NPR staffers.  As far as I know, we don't have a source that uses the magic words "NPR controversy." Drrll (talk)
 * No, that article doesn't say commentators criticized NPR for hypocrisy in the different ways they handled controversial comments. In fact, a word search for "controversial" in that article comes up empty.  The fact is, some people consider the remarks made by Juan Williams, Cokie Roberts, Totenberg, Codrescu to be controversial ... or at least troubling and offensive.  You'll find those remarks covered in more detail in their BLP articles, where they belong.  In addition, "NPR controversy" ensued when NPR got controversially involved in specific instances, such as when it issued a formal apology on behalf of NPR (see Codrescu) or terminated a contract (see Williams).  There is no such "NPR controversy" around the 15-year old Totenberg remark. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The article begins "Some conservative commentators are ripping into NPR for hypocrisy..." Unless nobody is arguing the other side, which clearly they are, it is by definition a controversy. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 21:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, you have it backwards. The article begins "Some conservative commentators are ripping into NPR for hypocrisy in the termination of former news analyst  Juan Williams ..." That controversy already exists in our article, and it already mentions that Williams (and his supporters) have tried to cite past treatment of other NPR people as evidence of hypocrisy.  At last count, 7 different NPR individuals (including Totenberg) have been fingered by Juan & Friends as he tries to press that point.  There is no "NPR controversy" about Totenberg's remarks.  Her 15-year old remarks (and the remarks of a half-dozen others) have been dredged up in the already existing Williams "NPR controversy".  Xenophrenic (talk) 05:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You didn't complete the sentence you quoted: "...specifically pointing to 15-year-old remarks by legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg in which she appeared to wish harm to befall the late Senator Jesse Helms." The entire article, in discussing alleged hypocrisy, refers only to Williams and Totenberg. It doesn't mention other NPR individuals at all. Drrll (talk) 12:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Not every "controversy" involving an NPR employee is automatically a controversy involving the entire organization. No evidence that this minor incident is of any importance to the organization as a whole or its long history.  Gamaliel (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Minor incident" which is being raised 15 years after it happened and was mentioned in a book called Ethics in media communications: cases and controversies. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 21:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't see how a single reference transforms it into a major organizational controversy. This is better dealt with in the individual's article, just like Eric Bolling's stupid remark is in that article and not Fox News Channel controversies. Gamaliel (talk) 22:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No one is arguing that Totenberg's comments weren't criticized. The book you cite doesn't convey that there was an "NPR controversy".  Feel free to take content from that source to the "Controversies and criticism" section of Totenberg's article. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The sources decide this question - Can someone provide some quotes from sources that describe the Nina T. controversy? The wording of the sources will answer this question.  If the sources use phrases like "Nina T. caused controversy blah blah ... [no mention of NPR]", then it is a Nina T controversy.  If the sources say "NPR was involved in another controversy this week when Nina T said blah blah..."  then it is a NPR controversy.   There may be some borderline cases where the sources say "The Juan Williams controversy caused person XYZ to note that NPR commentator Nina T made controversial comment blah blah..." - such borderline sources would probably not justify a dedicated Nina T section in this article.  Bottom line:  we, as editors, don't need to (and should not) decide if this is an "NPR controversy" .... we simply have to find the sources that discuss it and see how they view it.   Whoever wants to add the Nina T. material must  provide quotes from sources to justify the inclusion.  --Noleander (talk) 01:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see the 'Example sources' subsection below for a couple of examples. I don't think that we have a source that uses a formulation similar to "NPR was involved in another controversy when Nina...", but we do have sources that you would consider borderline. BTW, despite the NPR suggesting that it was only "some conservative commentators" who charged NPR with hypocrisy, we have Williams himself, Jesse Jackson, and a White House reporter from Fox News. Drrll (talk) 12:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for providing the sources. It appears that all the sources are not discussing NinaT as the primary subject, but instead are simply citing her as an example within a larger discussion of the JuanW controversy.   It is very telling that there are no sources that date from the time that NinaT made the comments.  Since all the sources appear to be simply citing NinaT as an accessory relative to JuanW, the best course of action is probably to include NinaT material in the "Juan Williams" section, but not to have a section dedicated to NinaT.  On the other hand, if someone can find sources from 15 years ago when NinaT made the allegedly controversial comments, those contemporaneous sources may (since they focus on NinaT) justify a dedicated section on NinaT.  --Noleander (talk) 12:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We actually have sources that discuss the Totenberg comments way before the Williams controversy--starting less than a month after her comments were made (see http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=NewsLibrary&p_multi=CSGB&d_place=CSGB&p_theme=newslibrary2&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0F34BA202ECB6C29&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM, which requires article purchase to see the whole context). Most are opinion-oriented sources, although there is reporting of the comments by The Charlotte Observer & The Washington Times before the Williams comments. Drrll (talk) 13:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, that is important information. Can anyone provide some quotes from such contemporaneous sources?  If they are (1) from significant newspapers, and (2)  use terminology like "controversy" or similar, and (3) primarily focus on NinaT, then that would justify a section in this article dedicated to her.  In addition, those contemporaneous sources should be the  primary sources for that section, rather than the 2010/2011 sources that discuss her relative to J. Williams. --Noleander (talk) 13:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I could provide some quotes, but from what I remember of the sources, few are from the major newspapers (with the exception of The Boston Globe, the largest paper in Helms' home state of NC, The Charlotte Observer, and perhaps The Wall Street Journal editorial pages) and few if any focus primarily on Totenberg. The 2010/2011 sources are the ones that most clearly define what Totenberg said as an NPR controversy. Drrll (talk) 13:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm. That makes it pretty borderline. Clearly there are not enough sources for a dedicated article on NinaT controversy.  But are there enough sources for a section in this article?  What I'm gathering is that all the sources that discuss the NinaT controversy are very indirect: either minor sources, or they just mention her as an accessory to some other controversy.  So far, I'd say that argues for a paragraph within the JuanW section, and against a dedicated NinaT section.  But it could go either way:  I don't see any harm in making one choice or the other.  --Noleander (talk) 14:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think there are enough sources for a small section. That's the way I lean, but, like you, I could live with a paragraph in the Williams section option as well. Drrll (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Following that same logic, we should also have a paragraph about Codrescu, who, like Totenberg, has also been held up as an example of alleged NPR hypocrisy. And according to the Politico article quoted below, we'll also need a paragraph on Jesse Jackson, who has been held up as an example of NPR hypocrisy. Yet another paragraph on NPR's hypocritical treatment of Cokie Roberts' missteps, of course.  And according to sources Drrll has cited, we'll need a paragraph on NPR's hypocritical handling of Mara Liasson.  I'm estimating that we'll need about 7 more paragraphs in the Juan Williams section to properly cover each of the examples of NPR hypocrisy raised by Williams in his defense. We'll also need to make sure each of those paragraphs conveys all sides of the individual stories, since these are living people we're discussing...
 * ...or we can succinctly explain in an encyclopedic manner that Williams has pointed to the actions and comments of several other NPR personalities as examples of alleged NPR hypocrisy in its disciplinary actions. We don't need the tabloid treatment of each of the examples (including the Totenberg one) to convey Williams' point. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You may be right that a paragraph about the Totenberg comments in the Williams section may necessitate bringing in paragraphs about others, although there are far more reliable sources that discuss the Totenberg comments than any of the others, especially in context of a comparison with the handling of the Williams comments. Her comments were so widely discussed that NPR found it necessary to devote an entire story to the issue, which was not done for any of the other NPR personnel. Because of concerns about an excessive number of paragraphs, it makes more sense to have a separate section for Totenberg, with all of its available sourcing. And yes, we can properly convey Totenberg's side. Drrll (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Because of concerns about an excessive number of paragraphs, it makes more sense to have a separate section for Totenberg?" Say what? You know we can't do that, because that would mislead readers into thinking there is an "NPR controversy" about Totenberg, when there isn't. The proper venue for the Totenberg "available sourcing" and "Totenberg's side" is the article on Totenberg.  This article already adequately covers Williams' point involving Totenberg and others. (And while it is totally off-topic, you are incorrect about there not being NPR stories on other incidents.) Xenophrenic (talk) 03:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's the whole point of this RfC. As I said before, but didn't in my most recent comments, I obviously admit that the Williams controversy has received more reliably-sourced mentions than the Totenberg comments, including on NPR. Do you know of any NPR stories about controversial statements by other NPR personalities? I've never seen one (except for the very brief apology on air for Codescru's remarks--hardly a story). Drrll (talk) 23:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, as I explained above, "We can succinctly explain in an encyclopedic manner that Williams has pointed to the actions and comments of several other NPR personalities as examples of alleged NPR hypocrisy in its disciplinary actions. We don't need the tabloid treatment of each of the examples (including the Totenberg one) to convey Williams' point."
 * And yes, NPR is well known for doing news reporting on controversies, even when the controversy centers on someone within their own organization. And certainly not because they find it necessary to devote an entire story to the issue".  And the fact remains that "being an NPR person" + "saying something controversial" ≠ "NPR controversy". Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Of the sources presented here, the ABC source looks good IMO: it isn't a blog or opinion piece and discusses the Juan Williams dismissal as a controversy relating to NPR. It also mentions Totenberg's comments. In light of this I'd favour mentioning Totenberg's comments in the Williams section, since that's the context the ABC source gives to those comments. Probably a short mention is sufficient. --Dailycare (talk) 19:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Dailycare, do you view Totenberg's comments as an NPR controversy, or just a Totenberg controversy? Drrll (talk) 20:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I view (after the ABC source) Totenberg's comments, or to be more precise people's opinions concerning them, to be an aspect of the Williams controversy which is an NPR controversy. --Dailycare (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If it is determined that this is not an NPR controversy, then yes "We can succinctly explain..." as we do now. You're right that something controversial said by an NPR person does not automatically create an NPR controversy, but it also does not mean that it cannot be an NPR controversy, especially if the sources point in that direction (as I laid out in my RfC response above). Drrll (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Example sources

 * NPR: "Some conservative commentators are ripping into NPR for hypocrisy in the termination of former news analyst Juan Williams — specifically pointing to 15-year-old remarks by legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg in which she appeared to wish harm to befall the late Senator Jesse Helms."


 * Politico: "During Wednesday’s interview, [Jesse] Jackson said the comments Williams made have been taken out of context. He said fear of Muslims is unjustified but real, just like incorrect stereotypes of African-Americans and Latinos. Conservatives have been pointing to a 1995 comment by NPR legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg, in which she said that conservative Sen. Jesse Helms would get AIDS “if there’s retributive justice” after he proposed cutting AIDS research. Jackson pointed to the same episode. “You know what Nina Totenberg said about Jesse Helms and AIDS? How ugly that statement was, for example,” Jackson said. “Juan was saying he gets anxious. It’s based upon these stereotypes. Many people get anxious when they saw blacks come in or they saw these Latinos walking in Arizona. So we have these unfounded fears, and we need to grow out of these unfounded fears. But he was saying something, I think, quite different.”" Drrll (talk) 12:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * ABC News: "Juan Williams, who was fired from his job at NPR after comments he made on Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor" this week regarding Muslims, fired back at the radio station on Friday while guest hosting "The O'Reilly Factor." "My comments about my feelings supposedly crossed this line, some line, somewhere. That crossed the line?" Williams said. "Let me tell you what you can say on National Public Radio without losing your job." He then mentioned Nina Totenberg's comments on NPR in 1995, when she stated that if there were "retributive justice," former Republican North Carolina Sen. Jesse Helms or one of his grandchildren will get AIDS from a transfusion. An NPR spokeswoman said Totenberg has repeatedly apologized for her comments."


 * NPR: "He also points to remarks made 16 years ago by NPR's Nina Totenberg on a syndicated television show in which she appeared to wish that physical harm befall the late Sen. Jesse Helms (R-NC) or his grandchildren in response to his words against gay AIDS victims. Totenberg has expressed regret for those remarks, saying, "I'll pay for them for the rest of my life.""

Results
CWenger and Drrll said that Totenberg's comments were an NPR controversy. Gamaliel said that they were not. Xenophrenic didn't give a formal response, but made it clear that he thinks that they were not. Noleander and Dailycare believe that it is an NPR controversy as far as being part of the Juan Williams controversy (Noleander prefers keeping the material in the Williams section, but doesn't mind if it's a separate section). The consensus seems to be that it is an NPR controversy, but that it should be implemented as part of a paragraph in the Williams controversy. Does anyone object to that characterization? Drrll (talk) 16:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would word it thusly, based on everyone's most recent responses:

CWenger and Drrll say that Totenberg's comments were an NPR controversy. Gamaliel and Xenophrenic say Totenberg's comments were not. Noleander and Dailycare and Xenophrenic say that Totenberg's comments have been raised as an aspect of the Williams controversy, and could be mentioned in that section. The consensus seems to be that the Totenberg content is not an NPR controversy, but it's relevance to the the Williams controversy could be noted in the Williams section.
 * I'd like to point out that the Williams section has already been modified accordingly (and subsequently expanded further by Badmintonhist), and looks okay to me as it now stands. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it's fair to see that Cwenger & Drrll argue for an expansive treatment and Gamaliel and Xenophrenic argue for a minimal treatment. So the decisive responses are Noleander and Dailycare. Noleander argued for a full paragraph in the Williams section: "So far, I'd say that argues for a paragraph within the JuanW section, and against a dedicated NinaT section. But it could go either way: I don't see any harm in making one choice or the other." Dailycare argued that Totenberg's remarks be mentioned in the Williams section: "In light of this I'd favour mentioning Totenberg's comments in the Williams section, since that's the context the ABC source gives to those comments. Probably a short mention is sufficient."  Therefore, at a minimum, we need to include Totenberg's specific comments in the Williams section (we don't need to include Codrescu's specific comments since they are already given earlier and since the sourcing is not as strong as for the Totenberg remarks). Drrll (talk) 09:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Correction: Xenophrenic argues for a relevant treatment, not a minimal treatment. Williams asserts the NPR controversy is over the unequal treatment (he was fired while others were not) of various NPR people by NPR, not about the specific controversial remarks made by NPR people themselves.  The present text of our article accurately conveys the relevance of the Totenberg comments in the context of the Williams controversy.  If you would like to give "expansive treatment" to specific remarks made by Totengberg, the appropriate venue would be the Nina Totenberg page.  Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, concerning the correction. Actually, Williams asserts both that the NPR controversy is over the unequal treatment AND about the specific comments made by Totenberg: "My comments about my feelings supposedly crossed this line. Some line somewhere. That crossed a line? But, let me tell you what you can say on National Public Radio without losing your job. Nina Totenberg wished that Senator Jesse Helms and his grandchildren would get AIDS -- I said would get AIDS. She's still working there." Given the RfC results, I don't say that we need an "expansive treatment," but that we need to include the Totenberg quotation. Drrll (talk) 19:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your interpretation of that quote, and with your interpretation of "the RfC results"; Williams is merely illustrating that one NPR person can say stuff that crosses the line (i.e., be controversial) and not lose their job, while he says stuff that (supposedly) crosses the line and gets canned. Williams' point about Totenberg is already conveyed by our article. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Out of 6 editors, 2 were fully in support of a separate section and 1 said that we should go with a full paragraph, but that he could live with a separate section. Another said that we should include the comments. So I go with the minimum that the RfC consensus called for and you can't even abide by that? I'm going to restore it, per consensus. If you prefer it be handled differently as far as style, fine, rewrite it, but the change should stand unless you can obtain a new consensus against it or you can get an uninvolved admin to close the RfC in your favor. Drrll (talk) 18:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Are we really going to have to do a separate RfC to determine if we can include the quote now? –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 19:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * @CWenger — We shouldn't need to, as non-relevance of the quote to the Williams-NPR controversy was already established within this RfC. The fact that NPR didn't fire these other NPR people for saying stuff, while they did fire Williams for saying stuff, is the only relevance Totenberg has to this story.  The specific details of what each person said is not relevant to Williams' argument, or to this article, except to note that the "stuff" said in each case can be considered controversial.  Not that it matters much, but it was also noted above that several statements by Totenberg have been raised in Williams' defense, not just the Helms one, so why cherry-pick just that one?  Since BLP policies apply even on non-BLP articles, we will of course, if we start coatracking quotes from living people on this article, need to also include the full quotes, full context and detailed explanations them, justifications and rebuttals, etc.  Instead, consensus has shown that we should keep this article relevant. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Consensus=views of 2 out of 6? Interesting theory. We pick the Totenberg Helms quote because that's what the consensus of this RfC is and because no other quote has such prolonged and prevalent sourcing--including an entire NPR news article by the NPR media reporter devoted to that quote. But, if you prefer, we can go the route of an entire paragraph on her Helms comments, supported by half of the respondents. Drrll (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * "Consensus=views of 2 out of 6? Interesting theory." --Drrll
 * While you might find your theory interesting, that doesn't make it correct. As I stated above, and in my edit summaries, WP:Consensus is not a vote; consensus has nothing to do with numbers. You claimed 2 editors want one thing, and 2 editors want another thing, so therefore, "So the decisive responses are Noleander and Dailycare."  Again, you misunderstand consensus — there are no "tie-breakers" here; this isn't a vote; the numbers are meaningless.  The only "decisive response" is one that resolves the issue being discussed.


 * You and CWenger have expressed a desire to coatrack unnecessary expanded content about Totenberg into this article section about the Williams-NPR controversy, when her only relevance to that controversy is that she wasn't fired by NPR while Williams was. Williams' assertions and her relevance have already been conveyed in this article. Adding any of her arguably controversial specific remarks here, especially without proper context and proper encyclopedic treatment, etc., is inappropriate.  The proper venue for her actual remarks is her Nina Totenberg BLP.


 * Dailycare was correct when s/he said that it's the opinions about Totenberg's comments (e.g., they are controversial and she wasn't fired for them) that are relevant here, and not her specific comments themselves. If that isn't clear, then maybe CWenger is correct that we'll need to do a separate RfC to discuss the appropriateness of coatracking controversial content not relevant to the article's subject. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Dailycare said "In light of this I'd favour mentioning Totenberg's comments in the Williams section, since that's the context the ABC source gives to those comments. Probably a short mention is sufficient."


 * I guess we do need another RfC about the quote, even though 4 out of 6 respondents made it clear that the quote should be in the article. I'd like for you or CWenger to do the new RfC since I did the last one. Drrll (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I took the liberty of correcting Dailycare's actual quote above; I hope you don't mind. I agree with Dailycare: A short mention of Totenberg's comments is sufficient.  That's exactly what we have now in our article.  Your (and CWenger's) push to further "expand" that (to use your word) by actually transcribing the words of quotes, when they have no relevance to the point Williams is making, is inappropriate.  Williams alleges unfairness, and even hypocrisy, in that he gets fired for saying controversial things while other NPR people do not.  What more are you attempting to convey to the reader about the Williams-NPR controversy with your "expansive treatment" of quotes?  I'm sure your intentions are good, and you aren't simply trying to shoehorn controversial and inflammatory content into as many articles as possible, but I must admit I fail to see the reasoning behind your most recent edits here. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You can't avoid the fact that 4 of 6 RfC respondents are in favor of including the quote. The reality is that the reader of this article can't see how the comparison to Totenberg is relevant unless they can see the quote. They can already see the quote of Codrescu above. Drrll (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Avoid your fact? I refute it as inaccurate.  And the reality is that the reader of this article is properly informed that the comparison to Totenberg is that she wasn't fired, while Williams was.  Codrescu's exact words included in the Codrescu-NPR controversy section because they are germane to the Codrescu-NPR controversy.  The reader can already see exact Totenberg quotes on the Nina Totenberg article. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * As DailyCare suggested, and as Gamaliel and myself appear to agree, a short mention of Totenberg is sufficient. You keep harping on about numbers as if there were a vote held somewhere, and as if it were somehow relevant.  A Request for Comment was made, and comments were given.  Yet you continue to re-insert your inappropriate "expanded" quotes for some reason.  Why? Xenophrenic (talk) 03:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You ignore the very sentence preceding DailyCare's comment "Probably a short mention is sufficient": "In light of this I'd favour mentioning Totenberg's comments in the Williams section, since that's the context the ABC source gives to those comments. Probably a short mention is sufficient." No, I don't keep adding my "expanded" version--my expanded version is a paragraph covering the incident, rather than a single sentence--in its own section. Somehow you think that things must go fully your way. Drrll (talk) 04:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I haven't ignored any "very sentence". I've read it as it was written, and refrained from reading into it additional meaning that really isn't there.  Perhaps we should ask DailyCare and Noleander if they could clarify their suggestions, for your benefit?  You might also want to remind yourself that the previous RfC had nothing to do with inserting expanded Totenberg content into the article.  (CWenger has now opened an RfC to address specifically that, below.)  And finally, I don't have a "way" -- at least half of the respondents suggested that a short mention is sufficient, which is what we have now.  I tend to go with an editors most recent statements developed after consideration and discussion, not their earlier comments that may be closer to what you want to hear.  But if you want to play that game, I can play too:  DailyCare says we should get rid of this whole article, "I'd like to step back a bit and ask should we have this "NPR Controversies" article to begin with? I don't think any of the items currently in the article are "NPR controversies" ...and I agree.  Going to go delete the article now. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Second RfC
I went ahead and started a second RfC (below) on inclusion of the direct Totenberg quote, since it is pretty clear that discussion among the editors already involved will not resolve the dispute anytime soon. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 04:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

First section about 'liberal bias' seems off...
The 'Allegations of Liberal Bias' section makes no sense. It quotes a study that concluded Morning Edition, a program on NPR, to be "more liberal than the average U.S. Republican and more conservative than the average U.S. Democrat". It specifically states an equal bias, "more conservative than the average" Democrat, contrary to the title of the section. Therefore this section does not at all show, imply, or even outright claim that it is purely a Liberal bias.

If a station is more liberal than the average Republican, and more conservative than the average Democrat, does this not mean there is equal representation, and therefore no bias? It sounds like the study concluded the station was very central. For example, this might be a stretch of an example but...if you add +3 to 0, (meaning more conservative, to the right) and then subtract 3 from it again (meaning more liberal, to the left), you end up back at 0.

I was surprised to see a lack of discussion regarding this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.57.142 (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that is a little odd, isn't it? I decided to dig up the actual study cited by the article we use as a source, and discovered that the researchers concluded that NPR wasn't more liberally biased than the other major media outlets.  In fact, the researchers expressed surprise at their findings, in light of all the clammoring conservatives do about NPR's alleged bias:


 * Another somewhat surprising result is our estimate of NPR’s Morning Edition. Conservatives frequently list NPR as an egregious example of a liberal news outlet. However, by our estimate the outlet hardly differs from the average mainstream news outlet. For instance, its score is approximately equal to those of Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News and World Report, and its score is slightly less than the Washington Post’s. Further, our estimate places it well to the right of the New York Times, and also to the right of the average speech by Joe Lieberman. These differences are statistically signiﬁcant. We mentioned these ﬁnding to Terry Anderson, an academic economist and Executive Director of the Political Economy Research Center, which is among the list of think tanks in our sample. (The average score of legislators citing PERC was 39.9, which places it as a moderate-right think tank, approximately as conservative as RAND is liberal.) Anderson told us, “When NPR interviewed us, they were nothing but fair. I think the conventional wisdom has overstated any liberal bias at NPR.”


 * The study cited to allege a liberal bias "controversy" with NPR is rather weak (and arguably inadequate altogether), since the study actually concludes all media is liberally biased, and NPR is even less so by comparison to many of its contemporaries. Can we get a better source to support the whole bias thing? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Since adequate sourcing is not forthcoming, I'll remove the section for now. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The study cited did conclude that NPR was no more liberally biased than your average major media source, so it's not the best source, but it nonetheless still supports the premise. Right now we have a laughable situation in the article where we have 'Accusations of a conservative bias', but no 'Accusations of a liberal bias.' If the far-left Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting can be used as a source for claiming a conservative bias, I don't see why the mainstream conservative Media Research Center can't be used as a source for claiming a liberal bias. Drrll (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it's a testament to how far rightward things have drifted that people can say that the lunatics of the MRC are mainstream with a straight face. Their vice president offered a cash reward to anyone who would punch a sitting member of the House of Representatives in the face.  If that's a reliable mainstream source, I have some hat eating to do.  But the point of this aside, before it drifts further off topic, is that surely we can find better sources to document this claim if its absence is so laughable.  Gamaliel (talk) 23:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't say that the MRC is mainstream--I said it is mainstream conservative, like MMfA is mainstream liberal. The more fringy groups are Accuracy In Media and FAIR. The thing you said their vice president did may be rather eccentric, but MMfA's CEO does something that I don't think too many CEOs of reliable sources do--runs a political action committee. My point about it being laughable that this article discusses accusations of conservative bias and not of liberal bias is akin to the laughable scenario of the Fox News Channel controversies article discussing accusations of liberal bias and not of conservative bias. I think the Groceclose study is sufficient to generally support the accusation of liberal bias at NPR, but I agree that we need more good sources for this, just like we need more good sources for accusations of conservative bias. BTW, I just noticed that AIM's lead disputes their self-description--by discussing how reliable sources characterize it. Drrll (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There isn't enough time this morning to address the mountain of false equivalences you've piled up here. And it's beside the point as well, the point being: find a reliable source and then we can discuss actual article content. Gamaliel (talk) 13:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In other words, in your view, only conservative media watchdogs are fringy, and only news sources like Fox News Channel and The Washington Times are biased? The Groceclose study is a reliable source on the issue, but I'll look for other sources as well. Drrll (talk) 13:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want to make ridiculous equivalences between organizations staffed by experienced authors and journalists and organizations staffed by people who offer cash rewards for violence against congressmen, I'm going to point and laugh at you. That doesn't mean anything besides what it means, so don't put words in my mouth.  If you want the article to make a point, provide reliable sources. If you want to assert something is a reliable source, make a case for it.  What that has to do with pretending the MRC is something it isn't, I have no idea. Gamaliel (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ad Hominens don't make for good debate. Your logic could be used to eliminate pretty much every single source available.  Arzel (talk) 18:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Media Matters is run by political operatives like CEO David Brock (the NYT specifically calls him a "political operative"), president Eric Burns, and vice president Ari Rabin-Havt. The bulk of MMfA's output is done by researchers, comprising most of the rest of the staff. Are those researchers "experienced authors and journalists"? No, according to the MMfA job description for researcher, "The ideal candidate will have at least one year of political experience and proven writing skills." Again, political experience is what's most valued. There have been some high-profile journalists and authors working for MMfA, like left-wing journalist/author Eric Alterman, but they are the exception, not the rule. Drrll (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Any number of entry level positions at any number of reliable sources could be described in the same a similar way. So?  As could the entry level positions at the MRC, though they'd probably request pugilistic experience as well.  Gamaliel (talk) 05:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, news organizations do not have a primary requirement that entry-level positions have "at least one year of political experience." Nor do entry-level staff at news organizations produce the bulk of their published output. And news organizations do not utilize political operatives for most of their management positions. Drrll (talk) 09:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sometimes what gets typed isn't exactly what's in your head. I've clarified.  I was trying to discuss the inexperience, not the politics.  Now that I've cleared that up I think you see what I was trying to get at.  But I see now you were trying to highlight a different aspect, so we've been thinking and talking about different things. Gamaliel (talk) 16:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. I see your point now and I agree that the amount of experience required is similar for different organizations. Drrll (talk) 11:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * When the Groceclose study determined the Drudge Report was liberal and The Wallstreet Journal ranked as the "most" liberal news source of all, even ahead of WaPo, Newsweek and Time, I knew we had a high quality study here. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the study said that the Drudge Report was as liberal as a typical Southern Democrat, but most importantly, the study says that the results for Drudge are almost entirely due to the bias of the sources it linked to, rather than Drudge's own limited reports. As the study also points out, it's a common misconception that the WSJ is conservative in its news reporting, as opposed to its editorial pages. The Groseclose study appeared in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal and you question its quality, while ignoring the lack of quality of the FAIR study in the 'Accusations of conservative bias' section. Drrll (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to add back 'Accusations of liberal bias', sourced to the the peer-reviewed scholarly journal The Quarterly Journal of Economics. It doesn't conclude that NPR is the most liberal news organization, but it definitely concludes that NPR is "moderately" left-of-center. This sourcing is far better than that in the 'Accusations of conservative bias' section. Drrll (talk) 15:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Could I impose upon you to quote here the exact text from that study that you say conveys the conclusion of the study with regard to NPR? Frankly, I'm seeing a different conclusion altogether from that study - and I'm certainly not seeing the assertion of a controversial liberal bias.  (I also don't see the quoted word "moderately" used anywhere in the study, by the way, so I will assume that is your personal description.) Xenophrenic (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It appears that the characterization of NPR specifically as "moderately" left-of-center appears in a different revision than the one published in the journal:
 * Consistent with many conservative critics, CBS Evening News and the New York Times received a score far left of center. Outlets such as the Washington Post, USA Today, NPR’s Morning Edition, NBC’s Nightly News and ABC’s World News Tonight were moderately left.  The most centrist outlets (but still left-leaning) by our measure were the Newshour with Jim Lehrer, CNN’s NewsNight with Aaron Brown, and ABC’s Good Morning America.  Fox News’ Special Report, while right of center, was closer to the center than any of the three major networks’ evening news broadcasts.
 * Table IV / 4 in both revisions show NPR to be the thirteenth out of 20 news sources as far as distance to the center and eighth most liberal out of 20. Drrll (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there a particular reason you cite the older, 2004 version of the study, instead of the more recent, revised and corrected, version that does not make the same statement about NPR? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No, other my reading was from the 2004 version. In producing the citation, I looked for the actual Quarterly Journal of Economics reference. Like I said earlier, both revisions have identical results (see Table IV / 4, which provides rankings of bias from the center). While not the most liberal source, ranking eighth most liberal in a group of 18 sources that all show liberal bias does not exactly qualify NPR as a centrist source, and fits the "moderately left-of-center" characterization. Drrll (talk) 00:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing for criticism of Groseclose study
The sourcing for the criticism of the Groseclose study appears weak, especially considering the strength of the peer-reviewed Groseclose journal article. Nunberg seems qualified to address the study, but his criticism is sourced to Language Log, a blog where "The site is updated daily at the whims of the contributors." The other source is a Media Matters post by the unknown author "P. W." In addition, the criticism of the authors is misleading, since the study in question received no such funding. Drrll (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The Media Matters criticism of the authors is especially misleading given the following about the study:
 * The researchers took numerous steps to safeguard against bias — or the appearance of same — in the work, which took close to three years to complete. They went to great lengths to ensure that as many research assistants supported Democratic candidate Al Gore in the 2000 election as supported President George Bush. They also sought no outside funding, a rarity in scholarly research.


 * "No matter the results, we feared our findings would've been suspect if we'd received support from any group that could be perceived as right- or left-leaning, so we consciously decided to fund this project only with our own salaries and research funds that our own universities provided," Groseclose said.

Drrll (talk) 00:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with including criticism of the Groseclose study by those qualified to do so (which Nunberg and Nyhan appear to be), provided that the criticism appears in reliable sources. I don't see how a group blog or a personal blog can be considered reliable sources. If it was heavily criticized, then there should be reliably-sourced criticism present. Drrll (talk) 20:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Credentialed academic experts posting on prominent blogs are most certainly an RS. Gamaliel (talk) 14:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Wait, so you post a link to a professor's academic blog as the source for the study but you insist that academic blogs cannot be used for criticism of the study? You don't see a slight problem with that?--Loonymonkey (talk) 15:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I included a convenience link to exactly what was published in the journal, a highly-reliable source, since there is a paywall to the direct link. And you don't see a slight problem with using user-generated blog content, which is non-reliable, to criticize a peer-reviewed journal article? Drrll (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Not when these are credentialed experts we're talking about, which have always been acceptable under RS rules. And Language Log is a pretty big deal in the world of academic blogs - it may qualify to be an RS on its own.  Gamaliel (talk) 16:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There are a couple of other problems with your copy here Gamaliel. The subsection is titled "Allegations of liberal bias" not "Allegations of of flaws in allegations of liberal bias." Putting more copy in this subsection that criticizes the rather milquetoast allegations in the study than is included about the study itself represents WP:UNDUE. Moreover this info more logically belongs in the "Defenders' rebuttals" subsection. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It might be giving too much weight, agreed. It can certainly be trimmed.  But if the study is mentioned at all, it should also be mentioned that it was heavily criticized.  I've never seen it mentioned in an RS without them immediately saying that the methodology was rejected by most academics  (and really, have you seen their methodology?  It's like something a high school kid would do for a science project.  They just counted how many times a think tank was mentioned and then divided the think tanks into "right" or "left" and tallied the score.  As if that's any kind of indicator of "bias.")--Loonymonkey (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Where's the reliable source that says that it was heavily criticized? Where's the reliable source that says that the "methodology was rejected by most academics"? Drrll (talk) 17:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not even sure what this study has to do with NPR at all. The claim of the study, based on their absurd methodology, is that all media is slanted left (which apparently includes NPR). But NPR is actually to the right of most of the other outlets compared in this study. (And, laughably, they consider the Wall Street Journal to be the most left-wing news source in the U.S., so that should tell you something about the veracity of their findings). My point is, how is this study in any way "controversial" for NPR? There aren't any RS stories about this study specifically as it relates to NPR. The whole section seems to be undue weight if not outright synthesis. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Upon reflection, I agree. NPR is one of many outlets cited in the study, and there appears to be no secondary source coverage addressing NPR's role in this study specifically.  Nor does this section even fully discuss what the authors of the study have to say about NPR.  Here Groseclose says  "One of the surprising findings is that NPR is not as left as everyone says it is," but you wouldn't know it from this article.  The media bias article is the best place for this I think. Gamaliel (talk) 22:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we would need a lot more than a primary source (which basically refutes the premise of the section) to keep this in here. This isn't a "U.S. News and World Report" controversy or an "NBC News" controversy, why would it be an NPR controversy?  The whole "liberal bias/conservative bias/etc..." sections seem to be a holdover from the "Criticism of NPR" coatrack that was folded into this article.  It's hard to see how some comments by Noam Chomsky is a "controversy" for NPR either.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The idea that the Groseclose study is insufficient sourcing is hogwash. From WP:IRS: "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." Actually, the NPR source Gamaliel cited is a good source for "addressing NPR's role in this study specifically" (and that source hardly casts doubt on the credibility of the study--3 years after its publication). There is also a broadcast segment on NPR where Neil Conan interviews Alicia Shepard and Shepard covers much of the same ground. In addition, there is a January 2006 article in "Public Broadcasting Report" that devotes much of the text to NPR's role in the study. Drrll (talk) 00:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's it? That's all you could google up?  The transcript of a broadcast segment on Neil Conan's talk show in which the report is mentioned and an article in "Public Broadcasting Report" (which I'm sure you've heard of before today, who hasn't?)  How does that in any way make this a controversy for NPR?  Where is your third-party RS sourcing that discusses this specifically as an NPR controversy?  Let's lump the "conservative bias" and Chomsky section in there with that request.  You're really going to have to show that this is an actual controversy like the other controversies in the article.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Like I said, the Groseclose study is more than adequate by itself. The other sources are icing. Actually, I think this article would be better named "NPR controversies and criticisms", just like Fox News Channel controversies should be renamed. Or do you think that both articles should stick only to controversies identified as such by reliable sources? If so, you think the 'Accusations of bias' section, among others, should be excised from the FNC controversies article? Drrll (talk) 01:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The Groseclose study does not establish that this is a controversy for NPR, how could it? It merely establishes that, yes, there was a study. The controversy would come from others reporting on.  As for all that about Fox News, I don't edit that page (and, as has been explained to you many times, other crap exists).  If you're editing this page to try to achieve parity with the Fox News page, then you have a misunderstanding about how and why editing is supposed to take place on Wikipedia.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, I think I see what happened here. I was trying to figure out how that section had strayed so far from NPOV (adhering to the conservative mantra that NPR, CBS and NYT are liberal while not mentioning that the study calls WSJ and Drudge even more liberal).  At some point it was removed and then in the Juan Williams dispute there were reversions.  Drrll claimed to be innocently "adding back" a section that was lost but as you can see here the language was changed to have a far less neutral tone (without any discussion or consensus).  I still think we need to discuss whether these sections warrant inclusion at all, they certainly don't rise to the level of "controversy," but in the meantime I'm going to restore the more neutral language that was there all along. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You complain about something being done without consensus, but then you put back the earlier text, modify it to your liking, but leave in the entire new paragraph that uses dubious sources to criticize the study? The study does not call Drudge more liberal than NPR, CBS, or the NYT--see Table IV. My mentions of the NYT and CBS together was not accidental--the study itself mentions those two, and those two only, together 4 times as examples of the most liberal sources. On the other hand, your picking of the WSJ and Drudge was obviously designed to cast the study in a bad light. If you read the study, you would see that the study specifically addresses the issues of liberal bias with Drudge (it has to do with the bias of the links from Drudge) and the WSJ (it has to do with the common misperception that the WSJ news pages are conservative). BTW, your change also substituted the reference of the full Groseclose study to the peer-reviewed journal article with a press release reference. Drrll (talk) 02:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "your picking of the WSJ and Drudge was obviously designed to cast the study in a bad light" And what was your picking of CBS and the NYT designed to do?  Perhaps I was verging on WP:POINT and for that I apologize, but since you were cherry-picking two other media outlets out of that study for comparison, why those two specifically?  It wouldn't have to do with the running narrative espoused by right-wing opinion makers that those three have a liberal bias would it?  Or was it purely coincidence?  I have no objection to replacing the link to the actual study while this discussion continues, but your unilateral introduction of your own POV into that section is unacceptable.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 03:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I picked CBS & the NYT because that's what the text of the study did--4 times. Yes, they said that the WSJ news pages were the most liberal, but tied for second most liberal were CBS & the NYT. What specifically is an example of me introducing POV and what did I add that misrepresented the study? Drrll (talk) 03:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue isn't whether or not the study is a sufficient source, it's whether or not the study is sufficiently relevant to NPR specifically. The study is about the media as a whole, so I don't see the point of mentioning it in every article about every media outlet mentioned in the study.  It's similar to our disagreement at George Packer - shall we slap the same sentence in every article about every one of the 143 journalists on the list?  However, if there is genuine secondary source coverage of this study specifically in relation to NPR - as opposed to mentions in passing - then I will support inclusion if coupled with appropriate rebuttals.  I guess it all comes down the quality of the sources you found.  Gamaliel (talk) 01:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Like I said, there are three good sources that cover the study specifically in relation to NPR, and not just in passing. The best one is the NPR article that you found, since that article is freely available with a weblink. Drrll (talk) 02:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And none of those make this a controversy (or even a criticism). I don't see how it's at all relevant to this article. Again, is this a "U.S. News and World Report" controversy?  A "Wall Street Journal controversy?" No.  Then why is it a controversy for NPR? --Loonymonkey (talk) 03:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree that they don't point to a criticism. Bias definitely is a criticism and the NPR article states "Although this study shows that NPR is relatively less biased that some other major news organizations..." There are many other reliable sources that discuss the criticism of bias at NPR besides the ones relating to the Groseclose study. Actually it is a WSJ criticism--see the lengthy treatment of it in that article. Drrll (talk) 03:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There still isn't any evidence of controversy or even criticism here. Can you quote the actual criticism? At least then we could start on the same page.  And regardless of what the study says, it's still going to need a reliable outside source to make this controversial.  Just because you consider the study a big deal doesn't mean it is a big deal to NPR.  Again, the study is not about NPR it's about the media in general.  Are you also going to try to make this a "U.S. News and World Report" controversy?  If not, why? --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I just quoted one example of the criticism in one of the four sources--that NPR is biased. That is certainly a criticism. When this article was taken from the main NPR article, the criticism sections were moved here and not just the controversies sections, but the new article was misnamed. As you responded to my questions about whether criticisms should be taken out of the Fox News Channel controversies article, I don't edit the US News article, but I wouldn't be opposed to adding the criticism into there too. Drrll (talk) 17:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait, so the criticism (as you quoted above) is that NPR is "relatively less biased than some other major news organizations"? How is that a criticism?  If anything, it's a rebuttal to criticism.  I'm sorry, but you have to see how far you're trying to stretch here. It just seems completely irrelevant to this article. As for the move, they were moved here specifically to get rid of the WP:COATRACK aspect of these sections with the hope that it would all be cleaned up and brought to standards one day.  That's what we're trying to do here.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that the NPR article says "relatively less biased", not "much less biased" or even "less biased." And what is the "relatively" in relation to? Some major news organizations considerably biased to the left. Sorry, but that is a criticism, especially considering that NPR was outranked in liberal bias by only 7 out of 19 other news organizations.  No, the criticisms were not moved for WP:COATRACK concerns: see here. Drrll (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's your own personal analysis. You're saying that this is a criticism, when in fact the original source does not.  Since you were quoting WP:IRS above, you might want to read the guidelines on primary sources: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. "  Unless you can cite a reliable secondary source for this "criticism," there isn't even anything to discuss here.  The section will have to go.--Loonymonkey (talk) 19:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A couple of weeks have passed and no sources were found to support the contention that this is controversial (or even a criticism), so I've removed it. If reliable sources are found which offer such an interpretation, let's discuss them. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Should Nina Totenberg's direct quote about Jesse Helms and AIDS be included in the NPR controversies article?
Proposed text (addition in question underlined):

–CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 04:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No per WP:COATRACK and WP:UNDUE. This article isn't about Totenberg and the section in question isn't even about the incident involving Totenberg.  If the quote isn't even significant enough to include in the text of Totenberg's article, then there's no way it belongs here.  Gamaliel (talk) 04:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding your last point, the quote is included in a footnote at Nina Totenberg. That's not really an option here. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 05:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but not the text of the article. So why should we include it in the text of the article here? Gamaliel (talk) 05:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * To be honest I have no idea why it's not in the main text. I can see both sides of including it here, but certainly it was reported enough in reliable sources to be in the Nina Totenberg article. Would you agree with that? –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 05:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a matter for the editors on that page. I haven't worked on that article in some time and I have no desire to do so again. Gamaliel (talk) 07:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes because without the quote the reader has no idea what she said that was controversial without looking through the references. The previous RfC determined that we should discuss Totenberg's comments and it was borderline whether or not it should be made a separate section; seeing as how close that was, one extra sentence in the Juan Williams section seems to be a good compromise. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 05:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * By that logic, we'll also need to fully describe who Codrescu and Totenberg are, because without such descriptions the reader will have no idea who they are without looking through the encyclopedia. And don't forget we'll need to transcribe Codrescu's quote here, too, so the reader won't be made to look for it.  And since both Codrescu and Totenberg are living people, we'll need to mention the context of those contentious quotes, and the fact that apologies were made afterward, etc., as WP:BLP applies here. (And by the way, the previous RfC determined that Totenberg's controversial comments could be briefly mentioned — which we have already done — not "discussed", as you wish to do.  This isn't the appropriate venue.) Xenophrenic (talk) 06:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No because the transcript of the quotes are not relevant to the Williams-NPR Controversy being discussed here. Williams' argument is that NPR showed hypocrisy by firing him after other NPR people have made controversial statements without getting fired.  The specifics of those various quotes is not germane to the discussion.  I can't see any reason to add them, other than to showcase contentious material where it isn't needed, for titillation purposes only. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes Her statement is controversial and notable even outside the connection to Williams.  I see no problem with the additional sentence here.  Arzel (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No, but with the caveat that the quote should be included in the main text of Wiki's Nina Totenberg article. Why should Wikipedia be drawing the conclusion that Totenberg's remarks were "inappropriate"? Include them in-line and allow the reader to draw his/her own conclusions. Badmintonhist (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No. Per Xenophrenic, the specifics of Totenberg's comments (and those of Codrescu, for that matter) are not central to the matter under discussion in that particular passage, which is the Williams-NPR controversy. Including the direct quote does not enhance clarity of the subject at hand, and is therefore superfluous in this context. Support Badmintonhist's caveat, as it would be useful to have the quote in question included in-line on the Nina Totenberg article.--JayJasper (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, per CWenger and my earlier comments. Drrll (talk) 12:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No, per Xenophrenic and earlier comments. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No Too trivial.  TFD (talk) 03:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on NPR controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for //www.boston.com/globe/magazine/2003/0209/coverstory_entire.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on NPR controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.boston.com/globe/magazine/2003/0209/coverstory_entire.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.journalism.org/dvorkinrelease.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061008020042/http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php?nid=&id=&pnt=102&lb=brusc to http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php?nid=&id=&pnt=102&lb=brusc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:09, 11 February 2018 (UTC)